Evolutionary Infighting and Creation Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Time and again, reports are brought to me by my prospector friend Stormie Waters about the occasional ruckus at the Darwin Ranch. She was over at Sour Wells a spell back. Along came Jacqueline Hyde (who was not quite herself again), the lady friend of Rusty Swingset (the foreman) and they commenced to jawing about the latest dustups. Then they came over to visit and give me the lowdown.

Evolutionists tend to portray their worldview as mostly unified with just a few details to be ironed out. Not true. As we have seen on this site alone, there is considerable dissent among them. Apparently, some want to give evolution a complete overhaul instead of continuing to put lipstick on a pig and chanting the natural selection mantra. Biblical creationists need to make our move and use this divide for the gospel message.

Despite the claims of some, scientists are not at all unified about evolution. Biblical creationists should use this situation to present the truth.
Credits: Pixabay / Gareth Weeks (for the pig) and Irum Shahid (for the lipstick)
For several examples of how evolutionary dogma does not square with observed information, see "Darwinism Does Not Fit the Evidence" — and these are just from May, 2021.

What follows may generate some heat. There are some creationists who think that if we show where evolutionary conjectures are fundamentally flawed, people will fall on their knees and repent. That's not how it works, old son. Naturalists are firmly committed to their worldview, which has no room for the Creator. There's always a rescuing device that can be conjured up. Several creation science ministries (mine included) present our material within a biblical framework and indicate that the evidence supports not only recent creation, but the Genesis Flood as well.

You see, it's not their evidence versus our evidence. We all have the same things to work with. It is the interpretations of the evidence that matter, and those interpretations are based on our presuppositions. They presuppose atheistic naturalism, we presuppose that the Bible is true and God is the Creator.

Creationists are like their secular counterparts by presenting models that may fit the data, running them up the flagpole, and seeing if anyone salutes them. In the true spirit of science, bad models are discarded if they cannot be modified and made presentable. We hold to the truth of the gospel, but secularists often give in to avarice and cling to bad ideas in addition to naturalism.

Some people claim that creationists only poke holes in evolution. I'll allow that there's quite a bit of that, but creationists not only have models to provide their views, there are calls to action in their own peer-reviewed journals about building more robust creation science models in areas that may be lacking. Some of these critics within our circles seem to be underinformed about how creation scientists are well aware of difficulties in some models, acting like creation scientists are unaware of what is going on.

Another area that will probably generate a great deal of heat is the article featured below by the Institute for Creation Research. Regular readers may recall that there were several articles from ICR about the CET (Continuous Environmental Tracking) model (such as this one). This involved the engineering standpoint that organisms are designed by the Creator to have internal capabilities for adaptations. Indeed, this seems to be supported by data.

However, I see two problems. One is that Dr. Guliuzza is on record as rejecting the observed fact of natural selection. Personally, I think he has misspoken or modified his views because creationists are in agreement with him that Darwinian natural selection is not a creative force. (I am presenting what I think is the case, but if ICR or Dr. Guliuzza want to set me straight, let me know.) His views on natural selection as well as the controversy over CET can be a problem, since there are creationists who are none too fond of this ICR model.

The second problem that I see is that while biblical creationists are unified on the inerrancy and truth of Scripture, they tend to act like monoliths. Although there is some cooperation, it seems that many times the big players act like they are pretty much the only ones who are doing anything for creation science.

In a CMI article, the author wonders how creationists can engage people today. (Have you ever seen CMI and AiG link to each other's articles? Me, neither.) Brethren, these things ought not to be! While we can have our differences, we should still be working together and supporting one another more than we are now. Also, it would be mighty nice if the larger ministries acknowledged those of us little folks who are spreading the word about their material. You're welcome.
Evolutionary biology is experiencing its most serious division over the structure of evolutionary theory since the development of the modern synthesis nearly 100 years ago. The modern synthesis is the name for current evolutionary theory that synthesizes Darwin’s concepts of the selective agency of nature and survival of the fittest, facts about genetics that Darwin lacked (later including the notion of random mutation as the primary source of genetic variation), and statistical models of populations. In November 2016, Great Britain’s prestigious Royal Society held a conference to deliberate if evolutionary theory needed to be extended, reformed, or totally overhauled to accommodate fresh ideas from new discoveries.

You can read the entire article at "Evolution's Divide Is Creation's Opportunity".

Comments